If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Mike Wells: Pacers Q&A 12-03-05

Question: If Jonathon Bender decides to retire, will he still count against the Pacers salary cap in this and future seasons?

Answer: If Bender is forced to retire, which would be very unfortunate, he will still get paid because his contract is guaranteed. If an independent doctor determines Bender can no longer play, the Pacers will apply to the league to have what's left of his contract removed for salary cap purposes one year from the date it was determined he couldn't play anymore. The move will also help for luxury tax purposes. (Johnny from Chico, Calif.)

Question: I agree with you that the return of Jeff Foster will be huge. My question is what about the other centers on the roster. We are getting killed on the boards and the centers don't even play a combined 20 minutes in a game. Even when Pollard starts he seldom plays more than 15 minutes. If they can't rebound then why are they on the roster? (Tom from Muncie. Ind.)

Answer: I agree with you Tom on your comment about the centers not being able to play a combined 20 minutes a game and help rebound the ball. David Harrison can't stay on the court long enough to contribute because he usually picks up a couple of fouls within 30 seconds of checking into game. Harrison needs to learn to quit getting offensive fouls and to stay on his feet because the slightest pump fake sends him jumping toward the roof. Pollard is a situational center. He won't play unless the Pacers are going against somebody like Shaq or Yao Ming. Depending on how quickly Foster returns to his former self, the Pacers could end up trying to trade Pollard later this season because he's in the final of his contract. O'Neal and Croshere, the team's top rebounders, need Foster to get back into game shape quickly because you're right, the Pacers are getting outrebounded on the glass and it really showed in the Atlanta game when they gave up 24 offensive rebounds to the Hawks.

Question: Is there anyone that thinks the Pacers struggles are a result of Rick Carlisle? Everyone talks about how he is a great coach, and how he held the team together last year, but do you really think his style fits the Pacers? It seems like they are most suited to be a uptempo team and he is all about slowing them down and calling a play. What do you think? (Brian from Fort Wayne, Ind.)

Answer: There's no other way to put it: Carlisle is a micromanager when it comes to coaching. The Pacers had one of their best games against New Jersey when Carlisle wasn't constantly calling a play every time the court. Anthony Johnson said it best after that game when he said Carlisle "trusts himself more than he trusts us." This team has the players to play uptempo (except against Phoenix). The constant play calling disrupts the flow of the game. The ball usually ends up in O'Neal's hands in the post with everybody standing around watching after the initial first cut to the basket by the passer. Playing that style makes the Pacers predictable on offense. The things is, though, that style has allowed Carlisle to be successful as a coach so far. So I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't change his style.

Question: I'm one of the few Austin Croshere supporters. I've been saying for years that he is underappreciated and that when he is on the floor the team seems to play better. This perception was supported by an analysis published in the Star a season or two ago. I believe that he is getting more of an opportunity to play this season, and that he is playing well. My question is why was Croshere taken out near the end of the Atlanta game. I believe that he would have rebounded the missed free throw, and that the Pacers would have won the game. In fact, it seems like most of the Pacer losses so far this season have been because Croshere was not on the floor near the end of the game. (Kevin from Indianapolis)

Answer: Croshere's usually not on the court at the end of games for defensive purposes. As good of a rebounder and free throw shooter as he is, Croshere isn't quick enough on defense. You're taking a risk by having him on the court at the end of a close game because you'll probably have to give help, which will leave somebody else open on the court. Despite his defensive problems, Croshere has been one of the Pacers' bright spots this season.

Question: Is Stephan Jackson a plus or a minus for the Pacers in all respects?
(Jack from Bloomingdale, Ill.)

Answer: My problem with Jackson is that you never know which player is going to show up. Some nights he looks like a player that fits in well alongside Jermaine and Artest. Other nights he looks like he's the one hurting the team chemistry (the Nov. 25 game against Atlanta) and he's more worried about improving his individual stats than playing within the team concept. He has a tendency to take bad shots in the offense. I think part of that problem is the loss of Mike Brown to Cleveland. Brown had the ability to relate with the players and keep their head in the game. Brown would often go to the end of the bench and talk to Jackson to keep him focused when he would get upset over an issue.

Re: Mike Wells: Pacers Q&A 12-03-05

There is a BIG difference between "telling it as it is" and "blowing it out your ear"

IMO Wells is mostly doing the latter, for one he does not care one iota about facts and for two, even in his opinionated answers he uses what he reads on bulletin boards to underwrite his opinion, but let's tackle this one:

Question: If Jonathon Bender decides to retire, will he still count against the Pacers salary cap in this and future seasons?

Answer: If Bender is forced to retire, which would be very unfortunate, he will still get paid because his contract is guaranteed. If an independent doctor determines Bender can no longer play, the Pacers will apply to the league to have what's left of his contract removed for salary cap purposes one year from the date it was determined he couldn't play anymore. The move will also help for luxury tax purposes. (Johnny from Chico, Calif.)

OK I can see it's hard to "know" anything about the CBA, but this one is A more complicated and B plain wrong.
The application can only be done if a player has played less then 7 games over the past 12 months and will then be (IF given) valid straight away, not one year from then, getting your facts straight seems unimportant here, readin Coon's is obviously to much work for the salart they are paying him.

Question: I agree with you that the return of Jeff Foster will be huge. My question is what about the other centers on the roster. We are getting killed on the boards and the centers don't even play a combined 20 minutes in a game. Even when Pollard starts he seldom plays more than 15 minutes. If they can't rebound then why are they on the roster? (Tom from Muncie. Ind.)

Answer: I agree with you Tom on your comment about the centers not being able to play a combined 20 minutes a game and help rebound the ball. David Harrison can't stay on the court long enough to contribute because he usually picks up a couple of fouls within 30 seconds of checking into game. Harrison needs to learn to quit getting offensive fouls and to stay on his feet because the slightest pump fake sends him jumping toward the roof. Pollard is a situational center. He won't play unless the Pacers are going against somebody like Shaq or Yao Ming. Depending on how quickly Foster returns to his former self, the Pacers could end up trying to trade Pollard later this season because he's in the final of his contract. O'Neal and Croshere, the team's top rebounders, need Foster to get back into game shape quickly because you're right, the Pacers are getting outrebounded on the glass and it really showed in the Atlanta game when they gave up 24 offensive rebounds to the Hawks.

First of all, our "centers" have notoriously not been rebounding machines, excemption for Jeff, Smits was definitely not the best rebounder in the world, but we have guys like JO and Cro and Artest and we have G's that do some rebounding, in general the Pacers used to be a very decent rebounding team, the type of coaching/defense does not help here either, but I highlighted something else; Here (on Hulk) he is simply proving to be to lazy to do a 10 minute job to get his facts straight, let me prove my concept here :

According to Mr Wells Hulk picks up 5 founs in 30 seconds and does not rebound, so I went to pacers.com and went over the games we played this season to find something I knew was there; david did not foul out this year (reg season) in fact:

I can not be so difficult to do this before you drop something that was not even asked.

Question: Is there anyone that thinks the Pacers struggles are a result of Rick Carlisle? Everyone talks about how he is a great coach, and how he held the team together last year, but do you really think his style fits the Pacers? It seems like they are most suited to be a uptempo team and he is all about slowing them down and calling a play. What do you think? (Brian from Fort Wayne, Ind.)

Answer: There's no other way to put it: Carlisle is a micromanager when it comes to coaching. The Pacers had one of their best games against New Jersey when Carlisle wasn't constantly calling a play every time the court. Anthony Johnson said it best after that game when he said Carlisle "trusts himself more than he trusts us." This team has the players to play uptempo (except against Phoenix). The constant play calling disrupts the flow of the game. The ball usually ends up in O'Neal's hands in the post with everybody standing around watching after the initial first cut to the basket by the passer. Playing that style makes the Pacers predictable on offense. The things is, though, that style has allowed Carlisle to be successful as a coach so far. So I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't change his style.

As the question asked an opinion it got one, you either agree or you dont, not "facts" to be lost here.

Question: I'm one of the few Austin Croshere supporters. I've been saying for years that he is underappreciated and that when he is on the floor the team seems to play better. This perception was supported by an analysis published in the Star a season or two ago. I believe that he is getting more of an opportunity to play this season, and that he is playing well. My question is why was Croshere taken out near the end of the Atlanta game. I believe that he would have rebounded the missed free throw, and that the Pacers would have won the game. In fact, it seems like most of the Pacer losses so far this season have been because Croshere was not on the floor near the end of the game. (Kevin from Indianapolis)

Answer: Croshere's usually not on the court at the end of games for defensive purposes. As good of a rebounder and free throw shooter as he is, Croshere isn't quick enough on defense. You're taking a risk by having him on the court at the end of a close game because you'll probably have to give help, which will leave somebody else open on the court. Despite his defensive problems, Croshere has been one of the Pacers' bright spots this season.

This could've easily been tied in with the question above, burt again it is an opinion, not facts.

Question: Is Stephan Jackson a plus or a minus for the Pacers in all respects?
(Jack from Bloomingdale, Ill.)

Answer: My problem with Jackson is that you never know which player is going to show up. Some nights he looks like a player that fits in well alongside Jermaine and Artest. Other nights he looks like he's the one hurting the team chemistry (the Nov. 25 game against Atlanta) and he's more worried about improving his individual stats than playing within the team concept. He has a tendency to take bad shots in the offense. I think part of that problem is the loss of Mike Brown to Cleveland. Brown had the ability to relate with the players and keep their head in the game. Brown would often go to the end of the bench and talk to Jackson to keep him focused when he would get upset over an issue.

This answer defies an answer, he simplu doesn't answer the question, given the opportunity to give an opinion on something perhaps slightly controversial, he goes to an answer that any secretary could've typed out.

In short, I think he is a serious downgrade over MM, no matter what.

So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

If you've done 6 impossible things today?
Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

Re: Mike Wells: Pacers Q&A 12-03-05

Re: Mike Wells: Pacers Q&A 12-03-05

I agree with Able. Wells answers questions that most of the regulars on here could answer better. Montieth was a homer, but I like that. I like keeping the dirt away from the public. I don't think beat writers should lie for the team though.

Re: Mike Wells: Pacers Q&A 12-03-05

I agree with Able. Wells answers questions that most of the regulars on here could answer better. Montieth was a homer, but I like that. I like keeping the dirt away from the public. I don't think beat writers should lie for the team though.

And if I were reading Pacers.com I would agree with you 100%. In fact if I were Walsh I would be p!ssed if ever a negative word were uttered on that site.

However since I'm supposed to be reading a local newspaper that is for the most part supposed to be neutral then no, I don't think I want cheerleading from a Q & A session.

Now Able is dead on that he has to try & match his opinions with the facts on hand but it's up to the writer to maintain some form of neutrality.

BTW, for the record I don't think he should just bash the team either. I just want it called straight down the middle.

Re: Mike Wells: Pacers Q&A 12-03-05

OK I can see it's hard to "know" anything about the CBA, but this one is A more complicated and B plain wrong.
The application can only be done if a player has played less then 7 games over the past 12 months and will then be (IF given) valid straight away, not one year from then, getting your facts straight seems unimportant here, readin Coon's is obviously to much work for the salart they are paying him.

There is one exception whereby a player can continue to receive his salary, but the salary is not included in the team's team salary. This is when a player is forced to retire for medical reasons and a league-appointed physician confirms that he is medically unfit to continue playing. There is a waiting period of one year following the injury or illness before a team can apply for this salary cap relief. If the waiting period expires mid-season (on any date prior to the last day of the regular season), then the player's entire salary for that season is removed from the team's team salary. For example, in March 2003 the Knicks were allowed to remove Luc Longley's entire 2002-03 salary from their books (and since the luxury tax is based on the team salary as of the last day of the regular season, the Knicks avoided paying any tax on Longley's salary). This provision can also be used when a player dies while under contract.

Re: Mike Wells: Pacers Q&A 12-03-05

There is one exception whereby a player can continue to receive his salary, but the salary is not included in the team's team salary. This is when a player is forced to retire for medical reasons and a league-appointed physician confirms that he is medically unfit to continue playing. There is a waiting period of one year following the injury or illness before a team can apply for this salary cap relief. If the waiting period expires mid-season (on any date prior to the last day of the regular season), then the player's entire salary for that season is removed from the team's team salary. For example, in March 2003 the Knicks were allowed to remove Luc Longley's entire 2002-03 salary from their books (and since the luxury tax is based on the team salary as of the last day of the regular season, the Knicks avoided paying any tax on Longley's salary). This provision can also be used when a player dies while under contract.

Which is exactly what I am saying, You can apply after a year and get is THEN he suggest that they apply now and have to wait a year AFTER the application.

If an independent doctor determines Bender can no longer play, the Pacers will apply to the league to have what's left of his contract removed for salary cap purposes one year from the date it was determined he couldn't play anymore.

This is incorrect, after the independent check, they go back 12 months, where there are less then 7 games played.

And the 7 games comes from the CBA itself. though they have a restrition as well, but they are mainly meant to see "if you can get him back on the court" or "determine he can play with full and needed capabilities".

In other (perhaps more clear) words: He states they apply now and get next year, the CBA states, wait a year then apply and get, so IF we get the excemption he will not count against the cap & LT this year(season) whereas Dumbo is stating that it would be next year we had relief.

So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

If you've done 6 impossible things today?
Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

Re: Mike Wells: Pacers Q&A 12-03-05

And the 7 games comes from the CBA itself. though they have a restrition as well, but they are mainly meant to see "if you can get him back on the court" or "determine he can play with full and needed capabilities".

In other (perhaps more clear) words: He states they apply now and get next year, the CBA states, wait a year then apply and get, so IF we get the excemption he will not count against the cap & LT this year(season) whereas Dumbo is stating that it would be next year we had relief.

Maybe you gave a link to the source for this 7 games mention and I missed it, so could you link the source again. Much appreciated.

Re: Mike Wells: Pacers Q&A 12-03-05

Which is exactly what I am saying, You can apply after a year and get is THEN he suggest that they apply now and have to wait a year AFTER the application.

This is incorrect, after the independent check, they go back 12 months, where there are less then 7 games played.

And the 7 games comes from the CBA itself. though they have a restrition as well, but they are mainly meant to see "if you can get him back on the court" or "determine he can play with full and needed capabilities".

Where is this in the current CBA? I think that is an old provision in the previous CBA but not the current one. In otherwords, I think Wells has it right.

BTW, I like Wells candid approach much better than Montieth's sugar-coating.

Re: Mike Wells: Pacers Q&A 12-03-05

Where is this in the current CBA? I think that is an old provision in the previous CBA but not the current one. In otherwords, I think Wells has it right.

BTW, I like Wells candid approach much better than Montieth's sugar-coating.

The current CBA is in part on the same site the old CBA was, the players union site, but it is still dripped in, instead of one go, my guess is that the are a little understaffed.

The 7 days was in the old, and has to my knowledge also based upon several publications in the press, among which NBA.COM shortly before and after the new CBA was born, not been changed, the only thing changed is that it went from 2 to 1 year.
The 7 games are also "logic" if you see that otherwise no team would try and bring a "doubtfull" player back, as it would be to costly a risk, no owner would want that removed and players do also not gain by removing it.

Perhaps I am not clear in stating why Wells is wrong, but once more, they way Wells states it the Pacers wil have Bender on the cap for this year even IF we are gratned the excemption, which is NOT the case, one can apply AFTER a year to GET it NOW instead of applying NOW to get it in a YEAR from now.

Wells is clearly implying the latter which is wrong.

And yes, candid is good, critic is good, facts wrong is bad, see above and my proof in the Harrisson remarks, which are nonsensical if you realise that David has not fouled out once this season.

So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

If you've done 6 impossible things today?
Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!